(PC) Vasquez v. Maner ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK VASQUEZ, No. 1:24-cv-00862-JLT-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 14 D. MANER, et al., (Doc. 12) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable for violations of his civil rights while incarcerated 18 at Wasco State Prison. (Doc. 11.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for excessive force against 20 Defendant D. Maner. (Doc. 9.) However, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to state 21 cognizable claims against any other named defendant. (Id.) The magistrate judge granted 22 Plaintiff leave to amend, or indicated he may notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on the 23 cognizable claim. (Id.) In response, Plaintiff indicated he was willing to proceed only on the 24 cognizable claim. (Doc. 10.) 25 Based upon Plaintiff’s response, the magistrate judge recommended: (1) this action 26 proceed only on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant Maner and all other claims 27 and Defendants be dismissed from the action. (Doc. 12) The Court served the Findings and 28 1 | Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. 2 | Ud.) The Court advised him the “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time may result in 3 | the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 4 | 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 5 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 6 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 7 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 1, 2024 (Doc. 12) are 9 ADOPTED in full. 10 2. This action SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff's excessive force claim against 11 Defendant D. Maner. 12 3. All other claims in Plaintiff's complaint are DISMISSED. 13 4. Defendant Heather Shirley is DISMISSED. 14 5. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 15 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ October 25, 2024 ( LAW pA wn. 17 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28